Skip to main content

About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN2 28
LANGUAGE
English 28
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)
improve infrastructure, develop education and encourage development the we are in afghanistan for one overriding reason, to shore our own national security by helping the afghans take control of theirs. that means building up security forces to drive down british combat forces where the afghans themselves able to prevent al qaeda from returning and posing a threat to us and our allies around the world. this is poignant today on a plot executed by al qaeda and extremists with the same perverted ideology as the september 11th attacks. 375 british service men and women have died fighting in afghanistan to strengthen that country and keep britain and britain safe from another 9/11 or 7/7. thousands more including many civilians have risked their lives and hundreds have been injured fighting for the security of our nation. they were called to an international coalition involving 48 countries with a specific you and mandate working at the invitation of a democratically elected government. though there have been many difficult times we should be clear about what has been achieved. in 2009 my
occupation, especially, afghanistan, especially, iraq and increasingly, the spillover of afghanistan into pakistan is causing a huge number of attacks there. and so what's been occurring is not just a large number of suicide attacks but a large number of anti-american-inspired suicide attacks. >> so besides the obvious policy of pulling out, is there another policy? >> absolutely. >> to prevent this. >> because pulling out, simply abandons our interests, ignores our interests. what this book suggests is a middle ground policy called offshore balancing. offshore balancing continues to pursue our core security interests and obligations in overseas regions but does so with over the horizon, naval power, intelligence assets, relies on economic assets and political tools and this is the core policy that we pursue as the united states for decades in major regions of the world, such as the middle east with great success, and we should return to this policy. >> can you give us specifics about how we should pursue the policy in the middle east. >> in the 1970s and '80s, the united states had
at the long-term health care needs of veterans returning from iraq and afghanistan. actuaries talk about the challenge in estimating the future cost of treating brain injuries and posttraumatic stress disorder. also, the wife of a wounded marine corporal talks about her difficulty in getting care for her husband. this is an hour and 40 minutes. >> good morning and welcome to today's hearing, where we are going to examine the lifetime cost of supporting our newest generation of veterans. as we all know, when our nation goes to work, it is not just the cost of fighting that war that must be accounted for. we must include the cost of caring for veterans and families long after the fighting is over and that is particularly true today, at a time when we have more than half a million iraq and afghanistan veterans amid the hope care system that is in over 100% increase since 2008. this presents a big challenge and one that we have no choice but to step up to meet if we are going to avoid many of the famous geeks we saw with the vietnam generation. but it is more than just the sheer number of ne
drawing down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of the plan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the war is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trillion. and another thing that's scored in that, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way mr. reid scored that, which is ph
it illegal for women to attend to school in afghanistan. while this particular policy was discarded in 2001, similar deplorable circumstances still exist in afghanistan and around the world. the limitations and implications of existing education systems are far-reaching. yet there are concrete steps that can correct the damaging nature of existing education systems or the lack thereof. any institutions with international jurisdiction can and must institute global education programs including early childhood and vocational programs. early childhood education such aspiration head start provides comprehensive health, education and parent involvement to low-incomed families in the united states. vocational education is a further means of empowerment. by powering the technical skills and training to make individuals valuable members of the work force, such educational programs can also be recognized for their economic value. early childhood education as well as vocational training and educational opportunities are all viable in empowering programs that must be instituted in a global context. edu
of the war in afghanistan, which is what we're going to spend over the next four years? now there is a good cut that we ought to make. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. roe: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to recognize a true american hero, private first class joe immediate. private class meed was a member of mike company third battalion, 26th marines. he died in vietnam when his battalion was fightin while carrng a wounded comrade to a wounded helicopter, he stepped on a land mine and was killed. he was on a -- he was only 19 at the time. in recognition of his valor he was awarded the silver star. dwayne crawford, his former commanding officer who recently founded a scholarship in his officer, had these words to say about joe's actions. with total disregard for his own life, he continually exposed himself to danger by administering first aid to his wounded comrades. offering them comforting words and helping them to me
savings on the mandatory side and savings from winding down the war in iraq and afghanistan. these are savings that cbo scores of about a trillion dollars, that cbo scoring them at a trillion dollars. now we know some republicans will quibble over the savings but they have no leg to stand on. though war is the second-biggest policy driver of the deficit after the bush tax cuts. if conducting the war ads to the debt, it is undeniable winding down the war deliver savings. the administration tells us with the wind down their putting in place in the iraq and afghanistan, they can prosecute the war on about $630 billion over the next decade. cbo, however, assumes 1.67 trillion in war funding for 2021. by adopting the administration's lower number, we can save over a trillion. we know the republicans agree with this because they included the exact same savings in the wrong and budget that passed the house. i never criticized such accounting then and it's hard to see how they could do so now. last, senator reid's proposal allows a joint committee that has the potential to achieve e
influences our decision-making. you're the soviet invasion of afghanistan, which reignites the cold war period and makes the importance of u.s. national security fears ever more important for the american public. you've got economic issues at home that certainly dog people's perceptions of the administration, as well as the ability of the government to finance the things that it would like to do. all of those things and many, many more of course influence very to policies and the carter administration, and certainly space policy as well. so it's my pleasure to ask art to come up to the podium. he developed the memoranda for the present on many national security issues, including space policy and export controls. art. >> thank you. it's interesting to be your come and thank you for the invitation to represent the carter administration space policy in the evolution of space policymaking. i'd like to thank the space enterprise institute and the marshall institute for sponsoring this event. as i look over the audience, it's interesting to see a multi-generational, people that work with over
of our troops fighting overseas in iraq or afghanistan or anywhere else should also have to fight their banks back home just to keep a roof over their heads of their loved ones. and by the way a number of these actions have already been admitted to live the banks. over the past six months i have urged this committee to conduct a thorough, thorough bipartisan investigation of the systemic abuses. initially we had positive signs. on february 11 we formally adopted the committee's oversight plan, the blueprint for our investigative priorities. as part of that plan we voted unanimously to investigate, and i quote wrongful foreclosures and other abuses by mortgage servicing companies and of quote. we also held a bipartisan meeting in baltimore where we heard heartwrenching testimony from a disabled veteran who suffered abuses at the hands of a mortgage servicing company including an illegal eviction. it is a hearing of the testimony that the committee has done nothing. i asked the chairman to join me in sending document requests to the top 10 mortgage servicers, but he declined. so i s
to advocate for people who are being persecuted because they're christians whether it be in afghanistan, pakistan or egypt. and the two questions that i have, how many connections have there been -- convictions have there been over the last several years, do you have any -- and how many occasions do you know where the american embassy has advocated for these cases? generally, when there's a problem, members go to the embassy, they advocate it. how many times has the american embassy participate and been involved in any different cases? >> thank you very much, mr. wolf. there have been, in the 50 cases i was involved with personally, there were two investigations, neither investigation resulted in any legal process, so there are no convictions, um, resulting as of, as of complaints to the effective kidnappings, forced marriages and forced converses of coptic christian women. to my knowledge, also, and according to my research the u.s. embassy has not advocated on behalf of these women. >> one last thing, mr. chairman. as you have this record, i urge you to send it to leon panetta. our mi
on a firing line somewhere in afghanistan realizing today could be their last day on this earth so america can live to see another day. that's how serious the consequences are. so, mr. president, i would suggest that instead of being paralyzed by our analysis of where we differ, let's become analysis of where we find common ground and we do on not raising the debt ceiling. we know we should raise it. we know we can find up to $2.8 trillion, and hopefully more, in cuts in the deficit and spending over time. we know for a fact we have to extend the debt ceiling to some point in time. and if it's passed -- past the presidential election of 2012, let's ensure that each body in regular order can vote on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. which leaves us with one difference and that difference is what is the enforcement mechanism on the $1.8 trillion cut that the joint committee, equally divided, is supposed to come on? i submit we can find the common ground to find the silver bullet that causes that to happen. and i would encourage all of us to forget now where we differ, to recogniz
hunted down, you have native indians in brazil. even in afghanistan they call the areas where they're doing all the bombing the tribal areas. i want you to speak to the fact that indigenous people around the world are being if under attack. er attack. and is there some way we can get this out into the press so they can understand that this should be stopped immediately? >> guest: well, what you're saying was true. >> guest: what you are saying is true. i was just in norway and the performance with a nsga woman in india under attack by the burmese. i think what it is, there's always the land hunger and indigenous people are vulnerable. there are resources that others want. for instance, in i think it is coaster rica, covered the land and animals and oil. so what we think about is the oil in the gulf. we don't realize that is happening in other regions as well. it should be published. it should be in papers. it is very difficult to have that information. one book that i read was by hawkins. i am sure you remember him from long ago. or maybe not. the same thing is going on -- in a way
benefits to veterans or paychecks for the men and women wearing our country's uniform in afghanistan and iraq. i want to be clear. a default will injure america's reputation throughout the world. it will weaken faith in the world's most respected financial power, leaving our country's financial leadership in doubt. simply put, defaulting on the debt could trigger an economic collapse of historic proportion. that's why i plead with our republican colleagues, join us without delay in adopting majority leader reid's plan. senator reid's plan will provide certainty for middle-class americans and to the markets because it will provide stability, that's what we need right now through 2013. mr. president, this plan isn't perfect. in fact, including me, believe it should include revenues. it doesn't but that's why it's called a compromise. and after we adopt this plan and step back from the brink, we need to work on a balanced approach to get our country back on sound economic footing, and it means asking the wealthiest among to us pay their fair share. i was one of those who was very fortun
billion in iraq and afghanistan to train the security forces, less than $10 billion to retrain our work force for the jobs of the future. well, mr. president, i see others have come on the floor. i'll wrap this up. deficit reduction is important. i'm not saying it isn't. but it is not the single-most important thing right now. the single-most important thing is to put people back to work. that will, as senator wyden said earlier, start to create the demand. it will spur more private investment as the federal government begins to invest in the future of this country. that's where we ought to be focusing on. once we get the wheels going again, once we get people back to work and the economy start to to -- starts to grow, that's when we start to reduce the deficit. to just focus on deficit reduction right now to the exclusion of putting people back to work reminds me of when doctors used to put leaches on people who were ill. it only made them more ill because it drained more blood out of their system. and most times proved fatal, as it did to our first president, george washington. our ur
iraq and afghanistan sooner than many here would like or that the president would like, and save substantial sums if we do that. most certainly if we're going to go forward with shared sacrifice, yes, we do have to ask billions, despite all of their power and all of their campaign contributions and all of their lobbying, maybe the billionaires who are doing phenomenally well may have to contribute to deficit reduction. yes, maybe those companies that stash their money in tax hyphens in pwerpld and the cayman eye hraldz -- in bermuda and the cayman islands, maybe they are going to have to start paying their fair share. on my web site which is sanders.senate.gov, i put a small letter which said to the president, mr. president, stand tall. take on these right-wing ideologues who want to make devastating cuts to working families. and in a couple of weeks we have 135,000 signatures on that letter, and i think that letter reflects what the american people want. they want shared sacrifice. they do not want to see the elderly, the kids or working families being battered more and more, es
though some would argue that it's the iraq and afghanistan war winddown savings that you would get, but whatever it is, it is larger than the house proposal and use that as the first cut by lifting the debt ceiling. but there would be a sequence of events that would happen after that to avoid what the senate democrats do not want, that the markets and the rating agencies cause the debt instruments, the u.s. treasury bills, to be downgraded, there needs to be certainty for those rating agencies for the united states government debt. and it could be achieved this way. that you have a brac-like committee, that being a committee that would be composed equally of republicans and democrats that would come up with a package that would then come back to each house, no amendments, up-or-down vote. but that the fail-safe backup in case that that committee were not able to come to agreement, or in the event that it came back to both houses and one of the houses did not pass it, that you would then have the mcconnell proposal which is that the president would request the increase of the debt a
assistance force, isaf, and u.s. forces afghanistan. the president expressed his full confidence in general allen as he begins this important assignment and that he said he looks forward to working closely with him. and with that i will take your questions. >> i want to follow-up on something the president said. he claimed to call speaker boehner and the other leaders after the house vote to resume meetings here, is that right? should we respect resumption a daily meeting? >> no, i think the president will call speaker boehner, based on what he said. he will call the leaders and arrange for a time for a meeting to happen here at the white house. is not a series of meetings budget sometime in the next few days. >> he also made note at the end there that is in progress or agreement with the concept of six or seven senators, how is the white house expects what this again is think to have an impact on the house republican? >> the news from the gang of six/seven italy a significant because it dramatized and reinforces the fact that the only way to deal a significant deficit reduction bill is to
a war of necessity in afghanistan, keeping us there far longer than necessary, at an additional cost of $430 billion, unpaid for. a total cost for both wars, unpaid for, of $1.2 trillion. the republican party that will not now agree to one penny in revenue and demands only more spending cuts has fought to make tax breaks for the wealthy permanent that would cost this nation another $5 trillion. their favorite big business in wall street and a tax code that has resulted in major multibillion-dollar corporations paying no taxes -- yes, no taxes at all. in fact, a detailed government accountability office study of corporate income taxes from 1998-2005 showed that 55% of large u.s. corporations reported no, no tax liability for at least one of those eight years. yet, those same republicans will look us in the eye in defense of their defenseless position and tell us that most individuals do not pay taxes either. what they will not say is that those individuals who do not pay taxes do not pay taxes for a reason. they do not earn enough to pay income tax, and many of them are among the poor
. even in afghanistan, they call the areas where they're doing all the bombing the tribal areas. and i was wondering if you could just speak to the fact that indigenous people all over the world are under attack. and is there some way we can get this out into the press so they can understand that this should be stopped immediately? >> guest: well, what you're saying was true. i was just in norway and did a performance with a sammi person and a notga woman in india who were under attack by the burmese. and what i think it is there's always the land hunger, the taking over for land. and the indigenous people are vulnerable because they're in isolated areas or they're in places that they were sent that suddenly have resources available that others want, for instance, chevron, you know, has been -- i think it's costa rica has just covered the people of the land, the water and all the animals in oil. and so we think about -- what we think about the oil in the gulf but we don't realize that's happening in our regions as well. so it should be published. it should be in papers. and it's very d
about fraud in afghanistan, iraq, pakistan, and now the congress wants us, after giving away our jobs, not fair trade, free trade agreements -- now they want to go back and give them away with korea. i cannot believe the direction that this country has gone in. we keep talking about corporate tax rates. that is the key word. "rate." they are not paying 35%. they are paying 4%, 6%, 9%, and i am making up the difference. the irs is after a relative of mine who lost their job. they owe them $5,000. karzei and his brother have walked off with billions of dollars and our congress cannot seem to stop it. guest: well,
. and we're fighting these wars, three, $4 billion a week now in iraq, afghanistan. >> i speak out against the size of u.s. military budget. we're spending like 17 times as much as the next two biggest countries, russia and china, and i think it's crazy we have troops in 65 countries and bases all over the world. what do we think we are, the british empire to images ago? we don't make any money off that. and they do better without us there. the last war we won was against japan. [applause] >> okay, peter? i mean, it is true. you do speak out on it, but a lot of corporate executives, even when they are retired, not just corporate executives, congressman and centers, not wondering the last election that i cannot remember one except maybe the one from ohio. >> kucinich. thatcher hosted. they're both from ohio spent his name is hard to pronounce. but i think he was the only one that spoke out against the size of the military budget. nobody spoke out against it. it's true, the military-industrial complex like eisenhower warned us years ago has taken over the country basically spent not just the
's why. how many wars are we fighting now? let's name them. afghanistan, iraq, pakistan, libya, and soon as mr. leon panetta says, we'll be fighting in iran. we have military operations all over the middle east. why can't we divert some of those funds, cut some of those wars and not cut social security because social security never impacted on our debt. social security was funded all along so why are we cutting social security? >> guest: well, let me just assure you we are not going to cut social security, okay? i think there might be efforts in the house to cut social security, and it might possibly pass, although i certainly know that the cut cap and whatever it's called won't pass because it requires a two-thirds vote and you need 50 democrats to vote for it, and i don't believe we'll have 50 democrats to vote for it, but i guarantee you if any measure passed the house of social security, it would not be taken up in the senate, and if it did, i believe the president would veto it. you know, you're a retiree, paid into social security, all of your working life, and you deserve to conti
with afghanistan, and over the years the number has gone up steadily. in the first few years in the strikes of 2,042,007 they're just a handful and then we see it going up in 2010. the obama administration rising at a policy never fully publicly articulated. 118 strikes last year and 45 so far this year. the pakistanis said a couple of months ago that they wanted him stopped them stopped and they ordered the cia out in their base in pakistan were some of the strikes are being launched. by my reckoning there is than a dozen since then. so has this been done like the enlightened raid against the will of the pakistan government? put the whole thing in a different legal contextualization. we don't know that for sure but we know the americans are defensive about in last month for example john brennan tried to relay concerns he took to new targeting procedure and he said that in the past year there hasn't been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency precision of the capabilities we have been able to develop. in other words because they have been checking much more carefully th
and negative impact with few options to detain terrace outside of afghanistan progress read drawn down there we will lose the option. i am sure you seen press story saying the united states may kill the terrace but not trying ferry hard to ras ure them. lothtion becauseb it has been taken offt the table and this is why end of the best ways to get to intelligence and prevent future threats. so we congratulate you on your nomination and these issues need to be laid on the table and flush out the ku saysco it will be you. so many instances we need too>> certainly have that feeling of trust that we have developed and need to develop stronger over the coming years while you were in this position. >> thank you mr. vice-chairman now i will recognize the distinguished senator from north dakota on that democratic side, it can conrad. >> thank you. u, thank you vice-chairman and senator senators, i am delighted to be introducing match olson. parents are from northh dakota and people who might have known for a very long time.ti by his roots are deep and returns every chance he gets with hisdak family and
to pakistan? and afghanistan? why send all of that money over there? get our troops out of all of these other countries that we need them in. germany and philippines and all of the other places anymore. >> host: here's leslie -- excuse me, tammy in leslie, kentucky. >> caller: yes, they need to bring our troops home and stop spending the millions of billions. they need to help out the people on social security. it's hard to make it especially when you have a family. >> host: florida, linda on the independent line. where do things stand with the debt and deficit negotiations? >> caller: i think personally it's all bull crap. you've got people that is -- has been on the social security because they are either disabled or whatever. bring our troops home. we don't need to support pakistan. look what they did to us, we don't need to support iran. bring us home. get us out of that situation. we have people out here that fought for the country. now they are going to suffer because he wants to cut back the social security, medicare, and medicaid? that's nuts. i think just bring our people home. start
american problem. we are not talking about the war in afghanistan or raising the debt ceiling i grant that. but we are talking about something which is profoundly troubling and disturbing to millions of americans and it is also on necessary. i thought what we were meant to do is try to clear up problems here, and ten years ago they came to us and said we will clear of the problems because they make us look bad if we don't and therefore you could trust us to do it and they did so all i'm saying is we are going to stick with this. the sec stated yesterday it is seeking comment on whether a band third party billing appreciate that and they settle things, the have settlements and the ftc and that is stuff that is already done and is the mission of guilt. general madigan i want you to know that that's the way i read at the rate in the near future i plan to introduce working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. the legislation that would put a stop to this because i simply cannot find any grain of sense to us having to have a hearing like this and have -- i'm sorry you haven't got any eno
currently we have soldiers fighting in afghanistan and people don't seem to forget that. i would not say any prime minister is not fighting for the right people. continues to fight for the right people. >> how would any of those prime ministers ask as editor or chief executive how often or would they ever ask you not to publish a story? would they ask you to spike a story? would that happen? >> i can't remember an occasion of prime minister asked that. >> politicians generally do that? >> no. i can remember many occasions when a cabinet minister or politician or prime minister was very unhappy with stories we were running and -- not that they would ask us not to. >> if they had you would have been interested anyway? >> if the story was true and accurate, no reason for a prime minister -- that is why we have a free press. >> final question. still a feeling that in some way you had a close relationship with the prime minister. the allegation seems to be is no different -- the benefit of what people need to see. you have a close relationship with the prime minister. that was helpful to him and
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)